The ad follows the same format of previous MAIG public service announcements where hired spokespeople (victims of gun violence or celebrities or politicians or, in this case, pro football players) make references to recent tragedies, including the movie theater shooting in Aurora, CO, and the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, and then utter the vague motto ‘Demand a Plan.’

As previously noted in a Guns.com article, the ‘plan’ in ‘Demand a Plan’ actually refers to three specific legislative initiatives:

• Require a criminal background check for every gun sold in America

• Ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines

• Make gun trafficking a federal crime, with real penalties for “straw purchasers”

“Like most Americans, these football legends support sensible reforms that will help keep our children safe,” said Bloomberg, MAIG’s Co-Chair and largest donor.

“Common-sense proposals like background checks for all gun sales, removing military-style assault weapons from our streets and gun trafficking legislation are already in the red zone – it’s time for Congress to take them over the goal line,” added Bloomberg.

The other Co-Chair of the group, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, also chimed in, saying, “We are grateful that these sports heroes – who are also fathers, brothers and uncles – are choosing to speak out.”

“We need every voice to be heard to keep the pressure on Congress to pass legislation that will save American lives and make our neighborhoods safer,” Menino added.

The ad was released just days after leaders from MAIG met in Washington, D.C. to pitch their gun control agenda.

At the MAIG press conference other celebrities like comedian Chris Rock and singer Tony Bennett showed up to voice support for the ‘Demand a Plan’ campaign as well as the president’s call for tougher gun laws (Obama and MAIG’s plans are virtually one and the same).

Though, as Bill O’Reilly pointed out in the video below, one has to question the efficacy of ‘trotting out’ celebrities or football stars as a way to win support for stricter gun laws.

In a debate that is starving for facts and objective analysis on the national level, does it help to have more uninformed voices putting whatever celebrity clout they have behind a cause they know little or nothing about?

Does anyone really believe that Chris Rock or Tony Bennett or Michael Irvin or Deion Sanders can articulate what makes an ‘assault’ weapon an ‘assault’ weapon?

What are your thoughts? With respect to the non-gun owning public, are these MAIG PSAs effective? Or do they actually subvert the argument Bloomberg and other pro-gun control advocates are trying to make?

Post your Comments

Bloomberg is clueless when it comes to guns, and anyone that supports his stupidity is clueless by association. With all the money Bloomberg has, he should just buy his own country so he could be the dictator he obviously longs to be.

There is a moral problem disguised as a "gun problem". Did the media blame cocaine for Michael Irving's addiction? No. It was his fault. Noticed how the War On Drugs is still ongoing with no end in sight.

That's something I've been saying for the longest time. If one really wants to reduce the level of violence and save more people, try being more effective on that "war on drugs". Because they cant win on that front, politicians have to pick on something else. Unlike guns, there is no constitutional amendment on drugs.

You will NEVER see an end to the war on illegal drugs in this country. There are to many people employed for this endeavor, and they aren't about to put themselves on the unemployment line. You would see a huge reduction in government, federal, state, and local law enforcement if the drug problem went away. The same thing would happen if you could stop bad guys from killing good guys.

Well they must be scared since they have to parade out these sports figures. I really like a convicted FELON being used to push this agenda. Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel. I dislike sports stars even more. I bet they signed on without knowing the real agenda of these traitors to our constitution.

I think that I really do not have a problem with many of the things that are being asked for, I DO NOT believe that mult- round magazines are an issue and who defines what is an assault I can kill someone with a baseball bat, a strategically placed pellet gun from a pellet gun can also do this. ANYTHING can be used as an 'assault' weapon, remember the game where the ending might have been,,, in the library with a candlestick.

As I look at all the arguments for further restricting our right to keep and bear arms, I am forced to admit that perhaps "reasonable restrictions" are necessary for our safety. Perhaps government should be allowed to tell yet another private industry how to conduct its business. Perhaps the government should be allowed yet again to tell us, the little people, what we can and cannot purchase in our "free society". I suppose that the firearms industry must bear some responsibility for events like Sandy Hook because, even though "people kill people", they do frequently use guns after all.

However, if we are to entertain this notion in a responsible manner, then all areas of complicity must be considered. For instance, many people in this country believe that violence is on the rise because we're being systematically desensitized to abhorrent behavior by the depravity in our culture. They say that violence is glorified in movies, TV and literature, and I suppose that it is. They say that video games, in which people run around shooting at each other, are turning our kids into killers. I happen to think that all of us have "played guns" when we were kids, including those people who want to place "reasonable restrictions" on the videogame industry. We have all played "cowboys and Indians" (please excuse my use of the non-PC term referring to Native Americans). We have all played "cops and robbers". I have been playing video games all of my life and I have never had to resist the urge to go into a school and start shooting people. This argument is out there, however, and so I suppose that it must be addressed.

As long as we're having this discussion, we must also look at the responsibility that our news outlets bear for their complicity in these acts of evil that are being perpetrated against us with increasing frequency. It is well documented that, in many of these cases, at least part of the killer's motivation is the desire to become famous. Obviously, the news media bears a tremendous amount of responsibility here. Every time one of these events occurs, the news media plasters the killer's name all over creation, thereby helping the killer fulfill his desire for fame.

Surely, Hollywood, game developers, and the news media must realize that all of these things are attractive to people who desire to kill the innocent and actually serve as encouragement for them to do so. I know that all of these things are protected by the First Amendment to our Constitution, however I submit that, when the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as a telephone. Our founders could not have possibly envisioned the fact that one day our nation would be plagued with such an over abundance of evil tools of mass communication. It is clear to me that the people behind these outlets do not care about our children. Obviously, they only care about profit as they grow fat peddling death throughout our nation and the world. In light of all this, I feel that I have no choice as a responsible citizen but to propose here and now that we all come together and demand with one voice that Congress immediately repeal the First Amendment to the Constitution.

What's that you say? Repealing our right to free speech is a bad idea? We need the media watchdogs (as if they still were) to monitor our government and report on its attempts to overstep its authority so that we can protect and maintain our freedom? Okay, okay, perhaps you are right. Maybe an absolute repeal is not the way to go here. Can we at least, as reasonable people, agree that tools of mass communication are too easily acquired in today's society? Can we agree that the telephone (land lines only) and the regular mail are completely adequate tools of communication, and that engines of death such as radio, television, the Internet, and video games are not needed by a civilian population and should only be available to the military? We have all heard the story recently about the girl who committed suicide when her classmates posted a bunch of mean gossip about her on the Internet, so we obviously need to take steps to keep unnecessary tools of communication out of the hands of the unstable among us. Clearly, we need government oversight. We need thorough registration lists and tight restrictions on availability. We need background checks and waiting periods so that we can keep these tools of destruction out of the hands of criminals and so that the hotheads among us can have a chance to cool down before they're allowed to purchase and use such dangerous products and services. Surely, as caring individuals, we can all come together, for the sake of our children, and agree on these "reasonable restrictions" to our constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment rights.

My friends, can you all see it, or is it just me? The notion of gun control is not about guns at all. It's about control. It is painfully obvious that the real issue under debate is freedom. Either we are going to remain a free nation, or we're not. So, what's it going to be? If your answer is that we are not, I have good news. You do not have to go through all of these contortions to steal my freedom. There are already many countries around the world where the populace is not free and do not enjoy Second Amendment rights, or First Amendment rights (the vast majority of them in fact). You can go and be a part of all that glory right now and leave America to remain free. I am reasonably certain that those of us who wish to remain free would happily contribute to a fund that would pay your moving expenses. Think of it. Some countries will be free, and some will not. We, as reasonable people, will all be working together to preserve and maintain the "global diversity" in our "world community". You'll love it.

"Demand a Plan"? Really? Here's a plan: Prosecute criminals who use guns in the commission of their crimes. Oh, wait...there are already laws that address that. Here's another plan: Enforce the laws that exist already to their full extent, don't live in New York and change the channel when commercials filmed by liberal "celebrities" air.

They are not Heroes in any sense of the word, they were over paid ball players that have done nothing for this nation. They played ball to make themselves rich and have probably helped no one but themselves. Their opinions mean nothing to me, as does Bloomberg and the othe Socialist Party members, oops, I mean Democrats.

Agree 100%. The administration tried to do the same thing with the election. They trotted out celebrities in "support" of Obama basically saying "Beyoncé likes Obama so if you're Beyoncé fan you should vote for Obama". It's a sneaky underhanded way of getting what they want